Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  1. Home
  2. Journals
  3. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
  4. Volume 20
Journal Home
Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Publication date:
Topic: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×
< Back to all issues

Volume 20 - February 2005

Contents

Page 1 of 26

Instructional Course at the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

  • Disaster Research Methodology Using the Utstein Template
  • Marvin Birnbaum, Judith Fisher, Knut Ole Sundnes
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, p. 1
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Editor's Corner

  • Making A Difference
  • Marvin L. Birnbaum
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 1-2
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • View extract

    As we enter Volume 20 of Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM), many important advances have been implemented or are about to occur. What follows is a brief summary of what we are doing to make your Journal even better.

Abstract

Editor's Corner

  • Growth and Development
  • Marvin L. Birnbaum
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 139-140
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • The 2005 London Bombings and the Haddon Matrix
  • Jeffrey L. Arnold
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 278-281
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • The Importance of the Phuket Papers
  • Marvin L. Birnbaum
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 353-354
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • Impossible Dreams
  • Marvin L. Birnbaum
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 73-75
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Abstract

Editor's Corner

  • Professionalization and Credentialing
  • Marvin L. Birnbaum
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 210-211
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Theoretical Discussion

  • Model Describing the Effect of Employment of the United States Military in a Complex Emergency
  • Donald S. MacMillan
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 282-289
  • View abstract

    The end of the Cold War vastly altered the worldwide political landscape. With the loss of a main competitor, the United States (US) military has had to adapt its strategic, operational, and tactical doctrines to an ever-increasing variety of non-traditional missions, including humanitarian operations. Complex emergencies (CEs) are defined in this paper from a political and military perspective, various factors that contribute to their development are described, and issues resulting from the employment of US military forces are discussed. A model was developed to illustrate the course of a humanitarian emergency and the potential impact of a military response. The US intervention in Haiti, Northern Iraq, Kosovo, Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda serve as examples.

    A CE develops when there is civil conflict, loss of national governmental authority, a mass population movement, and massive economic failure, each leading to a general decline in food security. The military can alleviate a CE in four ways: (1) provide security for relief efforts; (2) enforce negotiated settlements; (3) provide security for non-combatants; and/or (4) employ logistical capabilities.

    The model incorporates Norton and Miskel's taxonomy of identifying failing states and helps illustrate the factors that lead to a CE. The model can be used to determine if and when military intervention will have the greatest impact. The model demonstrates that early military intervention and mission assignment within the core competencies of the forces can reverse the course of a CE. Further study will be needed to verify the model.

Editorial

  • Demystifying Bioterrorism: Misinformation and Misperceptions
  • Eric Noji, Tress Goodwin, Michael Hopmeier
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 3-6
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation
  • View abstract

    The true threat of bioterrorism remains mysterious and elusive to the common citizen. It principally has become the dominion of a few “experts”, many of whom have limited apparent expertise, who have failed to effectively communicate the risks and realities to society, and have instead created an air of uncertainty surrounding the topic. Unlike the great classic deceptions of modern life (e.g., “the check is in the mail”), the misinformation and misperceptions associated with bioterrorism can be dangerous and are not merely humorous. Indeed, it is possible to grasp the facts as well as fallacies associated with bioterrorism, and, as a result, demystify this nightmare scenario and prepare for the “unthinkable”.

Special Seminar:The Tsunami of Southeast Asia

Abstract

  • Overview of the Disaster
  • David Bradt
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, p. S113
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Satellite Symposium at the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh

  • Research in Disaster Public Health and Prehospital Care
  • Marvin Birnbaum, Frank Archer, Jane Knight, Ian Greaves, Peter Donnelly
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, p. 1
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

WCDEM Statement #1

Abstract

Peter Safar

Editorial

  • The Indian Ocean Tsunami Event: An Obvious Necessity for Research and Evaluation
  • Samuel J. Stratton
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 141-142
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

Special Report

Editorial Comments

Theoretical Discussion

  • Risk and Risk Assessment in Health Emergency Management
  • Jeffrey L. Arnold
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2012, pp. 143-154
  • View abstract

    This article considers the critical roles of risk and risk assessment in the management of health emergencies and disasters. The Task Force on Quality Control of Disaster Management (TFQCDM) has defined risk as the “objective (mathematical) or subjective (inductive) probability that something negative will occur (happen)”. Risks with the greatest relevance to health emergency management include: (1) the probability that a health hazard exists or will occur; (2) the probability that the hazard will become an event; (3) the probability that the event will lead to health damage; and (4) the probability that the health damage will lead to a health disaster. The overall risk of a health disaster is the product of these four probabilities.

    Risk assessments are the tools that help systems at risk—healthcare organizations, communities, regions, states, and countries—transform their visceral reactions to threats into rational strategies for risk reduction. Type I errors in risk assessment occur when situations are predicted that do not occur (risk is overestimated). Type II errors in risk assessment occur when situations are not predicted that do occur (risk is underestimated). Both types of error may have serious, even lethal, consequences.

    Errors in risk assessment may be reduced through strategies that optimize risk assessment, including the:(1) adoption of the TFQCDM definition of risk and other terms; (2) specification of the system at risk and situations of interest (hazard, event, damage, and health disaster); (3) adoption of a best practice approach to risk assessment methodology; (4) assembly of the requisite range of expert participants and information; (5) adoption of an evidence-based approach to using information; (6) exclusion of biased, irrelevant, and obsolete information; and (7) complete characterizations of any underlying fault and event trees.

Page 1 of 26